Welcome Visitor! Please take a few seconds and - Joined
- Sep 24, 2023
- Messages
- 25
- Age
- 63
- City
- South Carolina
- Vehicle Year
- 2006
- Engine
- 2.3 (4 Cylinder)
- Transmission
- Automatic
This is a bit odd, but I'm putting a 2.3L Duratec with five speed auto (5R44E) in a 1963 Rambler convertible. From what I researched both vehicles are about the same weight (~3,000 pounds), but I'll be losing about 200-300 pounds due to the weight of the original Rambler cast iron six (the old auto trans weighs about the same as the new). I bought a 2003 Ranger that was rolled over and plan on transferring everything to the old car.
The Rangers weren't known for very good gas mileage. The Fuelly site reports an average of about 18 mpg, the EPA site says 20/24 (22 average). Since I'll be slightly lighter and won't be hauling or pulling any heavy loads (like a truck is geared for) I was thinking about raising the rear axle ratio. I can have a driveshaft made to use the original Rambler rear axle which is 3.78:1. The Ranger comes with a 4.10 gear with the auto. I'm pretty sure I can fit the Ranger axle, but since I have a 3.78 Rambler axle I was thinking the 0.32 higher gear might help without affecting performance. Frontal area of the two vehicles is about the same -- the little Rambler front end is about as aerodynamic as the Ranger (not very!).
Any thoughts on this? I'll be running a 1.0-1.5" less diameter tire (195/65R16 - 26" - or 205/65R16 - 26.5"... Ranger stock is 225/70R15 - 27.4"). With the 4.10 axle overall gear reduction in first is 10.13:1, with 3.78 it's 9.34:1. The Rambler used a 3.31 (3.78 optional) with overdrive trans (0.70 OD -- manual trans. The 5R44E OD ratio is 0.75). The Duratec has about 40% more power than the old Rambler six but at a higher rpm. The Rambler six was rated at 125 hp gross @ 4200 rpm. That equates to about 90hp with today's rating method. The Duratec puts out 143 hp @ 5250 rpm. Torque is about 150#@ 1600 rpm for the Rambler, 154# @ 3750 for the Duratec. Obviously the Rambler can pull a higher gear from start-up since it's producing max torque at half the rpm of the Duratec -- that's why 3.31 was standard with OD and 3.78 optional.
The Rangers weren't known for very good gas mileage. The Fuelly site reports an average of about 18 mpg, the EPA site says 20/24 (22 average). Since I'll be slightly lighter and won't be hauling or pulling any heavy loads (like a truck is geared for) I was thinking about raising the rear axle ratio. I can have a driveshaft made to use the original Rambler rear axle which is 3.78:1. The Ranger comes with a 4.10 gear with the auto. I'm pretty sure I can fit the Ranger axle, but since I have a 3.78 Rambler axle I was thinking the 0.32 higher gear might help without affecting performance. Frontal area of the two vehicles is about the same -- the little Rambler front end is about as aerodynamic as the Ranger (not very!).
Any thoughts on this? I'll be running a 1.0-1.5" less diameter tire (195/65R16 - 26" - or 205/65R16 - 26.5"... Ranger stock is 225/70R15 - 27.4"). With the 4.10 axle overall gear reduction in first is 10.13:1, with 3.78 it's 9.34:1. The Rambler used a 3.31 (3.78 optional) with overdrive trans (0.70 OD -- manual trans. The 5R44E OD ratio is 0.75). The Duratec has about 40% more power than the old Rambler six but at a higher rpm. The Rambler six was rated at 125 hp gross @ 4200 rpm. That equates to about 90hp with today's rating method. The Duratec puts out 143 hp @ 5250 rpm. Torque is about 150#@ 1600 rpm for the Rambler, 154# @ 3750 for the Duratec. Obviously the Rambler can pull a higher gear from start-up since it's producing max torque at half the rpm of the Duratec -- that's why 3.31 was standard with OD and 3.78 optional.
